Matthew records Jesus saying:





  • Calling someone (by a name), and calling upon someone (for help), are two very different expressions, as far as I am able to tell. – Lucian Jul 30 '17 at 5:14







| improve this answer | |

The OP is right - it appears Matthew 7:22 implies:

Those who have invoked the power of God for prophecy, exorcism and miracles may still be condemned on the day of Judgement.

And from that one can conclude...

Therefore, NO assurance of salvation can be given, even when invoking the powerful name of Jesus Christ.

And even more scandalous in this verse is the use of the Greek word... “polloi” (“multitude”, “great in number”, “numerous”, “many”).

If Jesus is speaking of false-Christians or pretend-Christians, the use of “polloi” insinuates that the church contains a “multitude”, “great in number”, “numerous” amount of imposters.

However, drawing such implications puts Matthew 7:22 at odds with Joel 2:32 and contradicts most of the Gospel narrative. Therefore there must be more depth in the meaning of this verse.

Seeing as how the Gospel of Matthew is primarily a message to the Jews. And the sermon on the mount is during the start of Jesus’s ministry, a time that was exclusively focused on ministry to the Jews. And since Jesus’s sermon on the mount is delivered to a Jewish audience and primarily deals with refuting and correcting the false teachings of the Jewish religious leadership.

It is reasonable to contextually assert that this verse, with other verses in this discourse, are addressing directly the “Old Covenant People.”

Interpreting the “polloi” multitude to be a “multitude of those who rely on diligent law-keeping for salvation (ie Pharisees)” the next verse makes this declaration:

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ - Matthew 7:23 (ESV)

In the Greek, the word translated “lawlessness” is the cognate “anomia” made up of...

  • 1 “a” which means "no" and
  • 3551 “nómos” which means "law"

Literally it means "no-law"

So in this context (Jesus addressing the Jewish establishment) this passage declares:

...depart from me, you workers of
[imperfect law-keeping, that is in effect]

A teaching similar to Mt 7:22 is given by Jesus in Luke 13...


If this is the same teaching, we know for certain it is specifically directed at the “Old Covenant People” because in the very next verse Jesus shifts the subject to speak of the “New Covenant People”...

Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God. - Luke 13:29 (NET)

Paul re-affirms what Jesus says about the failure of those seeking justification through the law…

For there is no partiality with God. ...and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ...on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus. - Romans 2:11 - 16 (selected)

And Paul further says this...

...You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” Romans 2:21-23 (NET)

Clearly Jesus is directing His admonition squarely at the religious who try to earn salvation through law-keeping, as the Mt 7:22-23 warning would have no application to a people who live by faith under a Covenant of grace and mercy.

Joel too prophesies of this future Covenant of grace when he speaks of a “future time,” saying...

“And it shall come to pass....” Joel 2:32

Before his prophecy continues with...

“...everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” Joel 2:32

| improve this answer | |
  • Neville - +1"the Mt 7:22-23 warning would have no application to a people who live by faith under a Covenant of grace and mercy." I am not certain if this is intentional or not; but at least indirectly, your conclusion seems to be: "trusting in the covenant of grace and mercy, by demonstrating trust, grace, and mercy" is how one "truly" calls on the name of Jesus. Which is pretty much what I was trying to say - but far more efficient. Thanks! – elika kohen Jun 22 '17 at 23:48

Did Jesus mean something different than Joel (and Peter and Paul)?

Yes, He did mean something different.

He is referring to 'nominal' or 'talk the talk' Christians (James 1:22). Poeple who claim to follow Christ yet do not “keep [His] commandments” (Matthew 7:21; 19:17; John 14:15).

To understand this a bit better, we only need to look at one of Our Lord's parables:

Luke 6:46

Why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?

Jesus here distinguishes the mere profession of faith, acknowledgement of His being Lord, with true belief which is not superficial but implies adherence to His commandments—“the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), that is, 'doing what He tells us' to do in His various teachings.

Contextually, He compares two men who build on either sand as a foundation, or Christ:

Luke 6:47-49


Similarly, the false Christians who say but do not do what Christ teaches,and are not Christians in practice, since “faith without [the] works” that it requires and produces, was no faith at all: Matthew 25:14-30; 25:31-46; John 15:1-6. There is no such thing as 'dormant faith' for Christ, its an oxymoron, according to Scripture (James 2).

i.e. You cannot say you believe in Christ (Lord, Lord!) but not believe Christ (in that He says "unless", "if you would enter [heaven]" etc.) It's a contradiction.

| improve this answer | |

1. Question Restatement:

Is a verbal formulation of calling on the name of the Lord sufficient for salvation, or not?


ESV, Matthew 7:21 - Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven ...

2. Answer - Matthew had Knowledge of Joel:

It is not at all probable that "Matthew" did not have knowledge of "Joel".

NASB, Acts 2:16 - but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

If Peter's sermon was given before the writing of Matthew, and if the writer of Matthew himself was an apostle, and if "Matthew" was indeed present as Acts states - then the only conclusion is that Matthew had knowledge of Joel.

Further, Matthew makes a reference that wouldn't have significance, or even make sense - without knowledge of Joel:

NASB, Matthew 27:45 - Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour, (from Joel 2:31).

At the very least - Matthew might have been trying to express Jesus' own interpretation of Joel.

Note: The authorship of "Matthew" is irrelevant, if the text itself is referencing Joel.

3. Answer: Calling on the Name of the Lord is Much More than a Verbal Formula:

There is actually a lot about this throughout Scripture, but "Calling on" is a lot more than just "saying a name".

Baptism is a method of calling on the name of the Lord:

NASB, Acts 22:16 - Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Baptism is a Legal Appeal:

Calling on the name of the Lord is more, or less, a "Legal Appeal": to "Appeal to the name of the Lord - as and for - the legal merit for salvation."

NASB, 1 Peter 3:21 - Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The Evidence of Submitting to the Law of Mercy:

The "caveat" is: a person cannot be justified (righteous) to appeal to the name of the Lord for mercy, if they do not also advocate for the mercy of others - "in the name of the Lord".

NASB, James 2:13 - For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

"Calling on the name of the Lord" always entails much more:

NASB, Zephaniah 3:9 - “For then I will give to the peoples purified lips, That all of them may call on the name of the Lord, To serve Him shoulder to shoulder.




| improve this answer | |
  • I don't find your restatement of the question to be very enlightening. I don't have a theological problem with the two passages, but rather a textual one. It would be more useful to argue from Matthew that Jesus meant that something more was required than simply saying a name. I think the theory has textual support, but you haven't really given that here. – Jon Ericson Jun 22 '17 at 23:19
  • @JonEricson - I tried to show that Matthew absolutely had knowledge of Joel. But, Are you saying you would like more textual support specifically from either Matthew or Joel, showing that "calling on the name" is more than a simple verbal formula? Also, I updated the "Restatement" - which is only intended to confirm (or not) if I am understanding the question properly. Sometimes, I completely misunderstand. – elika kohen Jun 22 '17 at 23:36
  • 1
    Restating the question isn't a bad idea. I think my core difficulty is that the answer doesn't seem to show your work. I can sort read between the lines and see where you came from, but I don't have any real sense that Jesus (or Matthew) intended your suggested meaning of the text. – Jon Ericson Jun 26 '17 at 22:00

Your Answer

